Personally I would say that non-violent offenders should just have to repay their monetary debts and then be free to go on their way. They haven't physically hurt anyone or done damage to anything that isn't fixable, so why should they go to prison?

So, someone cases and break into homes while people are on vacation and you don't want them put behind bars? You say "pay restitution" but what if they have no money to pay? Do we then enact a debtors prison like pre-revolutionary France had in the Bastille? No, a felony is a felony and the person needs to be locked up. Bernie Madoff should never see the light of day as a free man yet his was a completely non-violent crime. However, he has no way of paying back all the people he scammed.

in the absence of payment mandatory community service would be acceptable. That is what i meant by putting them close to the people they hurt.

Of course there are tonnes of unemployed people who would love to break the law just to get work, so maybe that wouldn't work too well... (i do recall hearing about a homeless person who would break a window almost every year on the 24th of december and then turn himself in, getting a nice warm meal on christmas day in the police station and a comfy cell to sleep in that night...)

So which community? Again I bring up Madoff who hurt people in virtually every community throughout the US.

So the deterrant to committing robbery is having to pay what you robbed back?!

The idea of a homeless person breaking the law to get thrown in jail is an O Henry story.

Most convicted criminals do get the opportunity to pay a fine instead of going to jail. Most are found guilty of misdemeanors, not felonies. Regardless of whether it's violent or not, they are often given a suspended sentence if they are able to pay court costs. Those who pay go free. Those who can't do their time. The different to the aforementioned debtor prisons is... well... I don't know.

O Henry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cop_and_the_Anthem

thanks, jcbryan, i know i heard about the story in school. I thought it was a local story about someone in my home town.

"So the deterrant to committing robbery is having to pay what you robbed back?! " - i didn't say an eye for an eye, if you're requiring them to pay back you can expect reparations to be greater (value) than the original amount taken - if you steal some cash and lose it then you're pretty screwed.

As for Madoff, i can't say what punishment best suits his crimes, but sitting him in jail for 100 years is hardly going to achieve anything...

except feed humanities innate need for justice to be served (kind of weird how people are wired like that, no?). Maybe (if we were writing a bill) you could include some clause saying that if they would be unable to repay the dues and the difference between the penalty and the amount they could possibly amass over the rest of their life was too great then they would go to prison? I don't know, just brainstorming.

Well, I mean, the justice system isn't just there to enact justice (I know). One of the most powerful aspects of an effective judicial system is the deterrent effect. You threaten a certain punishment for a crime with the idea that the risk of such a punishment outweighs the reward gained by exploitative behaviour. The threat is only effective as a deterrent if it's credible, and that means carrying through with the punishment on those who choose to break the law anyways, even if it seems overboard.

Of course, deterrence isn't the only priority. It's much cheaper and a much more effective deterrent to say, assign the death sentence to just about any violent crime. We don't do this anymore because it could lead to innocent deaths if someone is wrongly convicted, and of course out of simple moral consideration to the criminals themselves. Such a violent judicial system was more common in the past because enforcement was less effective and they needed to balance the reduced risk of getting caught with a greater punishment. Nowadays, we use the greater efficacy of our judicial system to enact less harsh and more expensive punishments.

I do agree with the moral sentiment of your idea though. I find it absurd when drug possession charges lead to jail time, for example. It makes sense that since non violent offenders don't really pose much more of a threat to the physical wellbeing of others that they needn't be separated from society. In that sense, we needn't keep violent offenders in tiny cells when we could simply just put them on an island and have them grow their own food and build their own living quarters (Australia anyone?). At least if the idea of jail was simply to keep them from harming other citizens.

But like I've said earlier, the idea is that it is an actual punishment. You have to take away the things people value, such as their freedom, in order for a punishment to have any sort of effect. In that vein, maybe we ought to deny visitation rights to prisoners. It's the actual punishment that acts as the deterrent. Jailing Madoff for 100 years isn't meant to change anything that Madoff did, it's to warn any potential Madoffs that if they try to do the same thing, they risk his fate.

Maybe somebody can answer this.
In the the US is the thrid strike law in effect for all states or just some.And to tie in to the thread if so then under this law alot of non violent criminals are being locked up for longer then there crime would normally be causing a drain on tax dollars to house them in prison.

My bad law only applies to serious crimes.

about half the states have habitual offender laws. typically its for felonies, but this can include selling $20 worth of pot.